It makes a huge difference as she is most likely going to be running in 2016. By making that comment, she was in fact stating she does not care.
From the moment the incident started up until today congress has had to pull teeth to get access to emails an had to issue subpoena's to force them to
be at the hearing.

The internal State Department investigation was nothing more than Hillary forcing blame onto her subordinates.

Why would she say what difference does it make?
* - Its an effort on her part to only concentrate on those killed while sweeping what let up to the incident under the rug.

It would be like the police department responding to a dead person call, seeing signs of a fight, blood all over the walls, bullet holes etc and then
stating yes the guy is dead but we are not going to investigate in order to find out who and why it happened.

What does it matter since the guy is dead.

If she cared the investigation / hearings would be a lot farther along than they are.

A lie of omission is still a lie and she did not and does not care. She cant care because if all the info coming out is genuine it could very well
result in criminal charges (there are still a few fed agencies investigating).

The Senator's playing concern for four American deaths for political coin was what finally frustrated the Secretary at the moment she made the
comment, and it's what frustrates me enough to post again in this silly bash-fest.

Clinton said, quite clearly, that "it doesn't make any difference" whether our people died to militants, rioters, or terrorists ... what makes a
difference is THAT THEY DIED! Read the quote without blinders on. Americans died, and we need to find out who did it, how to keep it from happening
again, and the why can come later.

The IMPORTANT PART is that AMERICANS DIED. That is what Clinton said. The rest of it ... is your opinion which you're welcome to. My
understanding, however, is that at ATS we should strive for factual accuracy.

Her quote is clear; the meaning of her quote is clear. Bash the woman if you want--don't misrepresent the truth to do so.

And I could pose the opposite question, "Republican...why not let the Dems fail?"

The answer to your question is that the Republicans and Democrats are one grand ole' party. As James Madison warned, "The public good is disregarded
in the conflicts of rival political parties." However, it is only through their rivals can the Republicrats or Demicans can remain in power. Do you
not understand how politics work?

If the Republicans failed, then what excuse will the Democrats have when they also fail? At least they can say, "Your government is failing because
of the Republicans," and the Republicans likewise say, "Your government is failing because of the Democrats."

So it is in both parties' best interest to let neither fail. I hope Americans can start to open their eyes at this. You have had the same two-party
system for over half a century... why do you keep playing the same game over and over and over again? Are Americans really this ignorant? Hmm...I
think so.

originally posted by: Bundy
"No matter how flat you make a pancake its still got two sides" - Dr. Phil.

Now lets say American politics is a pancake... Two sides... Same Pancake (agenda)... Same taste in your mouth after you take a bite (#).

Now lets get to the source of the problem and don't sugar coat it because you will probably eat that to - Dr. Phil

Hillary has lied in the past and she lied about Benghazi. She is not interested in the truth because she failed as Sec. of State and lost an
Ambassador on her watch. Anything she does with regards to Benghazi will sour her prospects for a possible run in 2016.

Its right up there during her campaign where she claimed she took sniper fire when visiting the former Yugoslavia when her husband was in office.

We have 4 dead Americans - agreed.

Again it matters a great deal as to what led up to their deaths. Trying to blame the Republicans or the 4 people who died instead of her taking
responsibility is pathetic.

Again it matters a great deal as to what led up to their deaths. Trying to blame the Republicans or the 4 people who died instead of her taking
responsibility is pathetic.

So, no interest in the truth on your part? Obviously, you're only interested in perpetuating political theatre ...

1. Clinton didn't make the statement as you originally quoted.

2. Clinton has never "blamed Republicans" for the events.

3. Clinton has never "blamed the 4 people who died" for the events.

What is pathetic is the continuing, blind obsession on the part of Republicans and their sycophants and sympathizers to make "talking points" more
of an issue than finding the criminals who murdered Americans and bringing them to justice and to making sure that that resources are available and in
place world-wide to insure that nothing of this nature ever happens again.

This Benghazi conspiracy thing being beat to death by the Republicans is nothing more than sleazy politics. It’s being done for purely political
purposes and has no merit whatsoever. How these guys can stand in front of a camera on national television spewing this stinking bile like projectile
vomit and keep a straight face is beyond me. Some folks around here are painfully naive and gullible. I swear, if Fox News announced that Obama is
secretly an Al-Qaeda agent planted in the WH, 3/4 of the people here would accept it without question as the Gospel.

The Benghazi incident was tragic, and the people who lost their lives should be remembered and honored for their service. Granted. But, it’s not
only disrespectful, but immoral, that they should be shamelessly used as political fodder by the right. How can anyone find the republican agenda
acceptable? Why can’t these congressmen get off their useless, self-serving butts and start doing something positive for the country? How about a
workable jobs bill, for starters? We have some bridges and roads to fix. Think of all the tax money Issa has wasted on his endless search for a juicy
scandal.

I really wish Republicans had something more to run on for the upcoming elections than their hatred for Obama, manufactured scandals, love for big oil
and tax breaks for the fat cats. But, sadly, they don’t. They haven’t passed any meaningful legislation, haven’t proposed any solutions, have
shut the government down for no good reason, threatened to trash our economy, blah, blah, blah. Basically, they’ve accomplished nothing. So, I guess
pretending they give a hoot about Benghazi, re-visiting Monica Lewinsky, and various other manufactured conspiracies/scandals is all they’ve got to
run with. Sad...

Let’s see now, Republicans cut the funds requested by the administration for embassy security services, and then Benghazi occurred. In that order.
Since Obama has been in office Benghazi has been the only tragic embassy incident. It has been investigated by at least 7 congressional committees,
resulting in over 25,000 pages worth of documents, has included testimony by countless top level officials, and has turned up NOTHIING. And still,
the Republicans keep beating that dead horse. FYI, attacks on embassies have occurred under other administrations, as well. Under the last republican
admin, not only did 9/11 occur, but there were a number of embassy attacks. Here’s a few that I found, and I don’t think it’s even a complete
list. I think there were 13 incidents in all. Funny, I didn’t hear an outcry then...

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51. February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17. February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards. July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two. December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded. March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants. September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured. July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed. March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead. September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed.
Sixteen more were injured.

Hello? Anybody home? Face it, you lost the election. Now get over it. Start doing something positive for this country for a change. You’re wasting
the taxpayer’s money, neglecting your responsibilities as public servants, making a laughing stock of this country around the world, and dragging it
into the sewer with your incompetence. It’s not only pathetic, it’s anti-American. Why not let the republicans fail, you ask? You must have missed
the memo. Don’t cry now, but I’m afraid that happened long ago...

Because a lot of people are suffering in the United states right now, millions are out of work, the economy is sputtering. Education is a shambles.
Public infrastructure is a mess. THIS is what the American people want congress to focus on, not another partisan witch hunt which is only meant to
consolidate the base and skewer a democrat. They are wasting TIME on this that should be spent on improving the environment in America for the people
they WORK FOR. Investigate it with a small subcommittee, fine, but the congress should be working on improving the economy first and foremost.

Uh.....I think we tried that with the ACA or ObamaCare and they just kept on failing over and over again, repeatedly wasting time and taxpayer dollars
in over 50 attempts to repeal it and where did that get us?

Furthermore, they're currently doing the same thing with Benghazi. There have been 8 separate investigations, (5 in the House, 2 in the Senate & 1
independent) resulting in over 25,000 pages of testimony and information. (over 10 times the number of pages in the ObamaCare legislation)

At this point, I'm surprised they're not wanting to "start over with a clean sheet of paper!"

Hello? Anybody home? Face it, you lost the election. Now get over it. Start doing something positive for this country for a change. You’re
wasting the taxpayer’s money, neglecting your responsibilities as public servants, making a laughing stock of this country around the world, and
dragging it into the sewer with your incompetence. It’s not only pathetic, it’s anti-American.

With the exception of "lost the election", you are talking about Obama...right?

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: Nephalim
I understand where you're coming from. The whole government situation including both sides is horrible. But I don't understand the Dems position
on this. Why not want to be the winner after all this is over? Unless...of course...the truth will make the Republicans the winners.

You answered your own question. The Dems are terrified at what might be discovered. Hence the playing of the "race card", complaints about GOP-led
House trying to repeal Ocare, indifference over Benghazi, etc.

Personally, I'm a moderate Libertarian who has voted much more for Dems in my lifetime than the GOP but I'm absolutely disgusted with how far left
and authoritarian the party is moving. Time to shine some light and flush out the cockroaches.

Can you show me the news articles where the American People as well as the world were lied to about who was behind those attacks? Yes, in hot areas
Consulates will have trouble. Flat out lies about who and what started them don't happen often.

I think you are being disingenuous. It seems obvious to me, someone who has never, ever, ever voted for a republican (until 2012) and is a Bill
Clinton FanBoi, that she was making her statement to distract from what actually caused it. To me it seems the reason for that was she already knew
what caused it and she knew it could affect her future chances of running for president. The breakdown in security, and the fact that they knew about
the attack, who was behind it and had time to react would have been enough to swing the election.

She wanted it to SEEM that they had no idea what this attack was or why it had occurred and Gosh-Darn-it-to-heck she was gonna get to the bottom of
it...however now we knew she was already fully aware of the why and how.

I voted for this lady in the Democratic Primaries over Obama. Bill Clinton is the man. I am glad she didn't win.

They died on her watch.
They tried to cover it up.
They tried to portray it as spontaneous when it was not.
They tried to say it occurred because of an YouTube video.
They maintained their positions all the while refusing to cooperate with an investigation.
When an investigation was forced Clinton managed to blame those under her while refusing to take responsibility herself.

You are missing the implication and ignoring the facts.

Her appearance before Congress and the manner she conducted herself, up to and including her "what does it matter now" excuse was nothing more than
her lying in an effort to get the issue to go away.

4 people died. If those deaths were based on her failure to act on the multiple requests made by those on the ground, prior to and after, then she is
responsible for those deaths. Again, saying what does it matter is an effort to not be blamed.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, testifying in January 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations committee, said "...what difference at
this point does it make?" Clinton was speaking about the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans.

Well, Hillary, it does make a difference, as we are now finding out. A report of findings of a Republican led committee accuses Clinton of
"...seeking to cover up failures by the State Department that could have contributed to the attack last year that killed Ambassador Christopher
Stevens and three other Americans."

But why was the attack successful? Why was there not adequate security at the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya? As it turns out, it was Hillary
Clinton who denied adequate security. Page 2 of the report has:

Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to
withstand an attack, yet the Department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel.

On page 5 of the report is this little nugget of information: "Prior to the Benghazi attacks, State Department officials in Libya made repeated
requests for additional security that were denied in Washington despite ample documentation of the threat posed by violent extremist militias."

We get, on page 7 of the report, this: "...in a cable signed by Secretary Clinton in April 2012, the State Department settled on a plan to scale back
security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including Benghazi."

The report also makes this point:

Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including
highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs
Committee on January 23, 2013.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.